Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/18/07 06:07 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/18/07 05:53 PM, Togukawa wrote:

You're talking about me not giving what you ask for. Start by giving the right example and give me the quote where any of "us guys" claim the appendix is useless.

Oh yee of short attention span: Appendix

You know, all you have to do is google "useless Appendix" and you'll get loads of... useless appendix. But most are just forums with people asking about its purpose.

Okay. So none of "us guys" here actually claimed that the appendix was useless. So it was useless blabbing.

There, you get 2 in 1. How it states how people once believed it was entirely useless til now.

Ooh, evolution of knowledge. Scary! I was talking about appendages that were formed only to disappear later in the human development to a baby. A completely different thing than the uses of the collarbone, appendix or toes.

I gave you proof, the BBC article that covers how SARS has came to be. Since you already know what evolution is, then you should know that that is definite, observable proof of evolution.

You're going to have to do give me real proof. But in order to do that, you'll need to find the many labeled "missing links". Since you have yet to find any, you can't. What you did was provide me with what we found, and used it to theorize and further advance our knowledge about evolution (based on evidence).

Evidence is different than proof.

So you don't understand evolution after all.

evolution /evo·lu·tion/ (ev?ah-loo´shun) a developmental process in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by differentiation of its parts; a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces.

Very simple organism changing itself specifically for the purpose of being able to infect humans. Textbook evolution.

Fiberglass Insulation vs. Roast Chicken Pita

Fiberglass insulation can keep your house warm in the winter and cool in the summer, but Roast Chicken Pita is both delicious and nutritious.

WHICH IS BETTER OVERALL???

At 1/18/07 12:59 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/18/07 11:31 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: It doesnt matter if one person or one million people are wrong. If they're wrong, they're wrong

And what exactly does being right in your case accomplish?

Imagine with me for a second... say you've definitively disproven the existence of God. Feels nice to have a little validation of your believes, doesn't it? Just freed the entire world of the bondage of Religion and all that goes with it... but there will be a downside. Not everyone is going to welcome this bit of news with open arms the way you did. There are upwards of 6.5 billion people on this earth and you've just single handedly managed to invalidate the belief systems of all but about 1.1 billion of them.

To say that your life expectancy will drop exponentially an understatement.

So people should continue to live in blind delusion because one person is afraid to stand up for what is true? Obviously some people would be outraged, and this said person may become some type of devil figure in the eyes of the religious extremists, but it is only a matter of time before the extremists are crunched into a small minority.

Look, I'm f**king tired of this topic, Science and religion can co-exist.
The thing with adam and eve is that it is a story that gives advice or at least something along the lines of that, Besides I belive that god created the big bang and therefore the laws of pyshics and all of that, he created Jesus to teach people to be good and to also set a certain coarse for history.

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic.

'everything else' includes the uneducated 100% biased followers i guess...

Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve.

...and the people who can't put a sentence in the right order. The way you typed it says that science has disproven the Christian theory of evolution.
Either way its not true....

So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

Maybe because the leading speakers for evolution do little more than you... spout off nonsensical statements and scream that evolution is 'proven.'

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

Never. Even if some people think it does, it won't be long before another 'fact' comes and disproves the 'fact' of the big band.

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

That statement is nothing more than ignorance and bias. There is nothing to respond to.

Any other questions?

Since you presented no proof, what makes you any different than those who 'blindly follow' religion?

I can't believe I responded to this thread.

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve.

Nope, both the evolution of man and the Adam and Eve one are still theories and not yet proven.

So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

So you think Evolution is fact? They believe what they want to believe.

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

Maybe never? Maybe God made the Big Bang happen.

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

Well, it won't happen. Those theories will stay unproven. Remember this, Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

At 1/18/07 06:21 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Okay. So none of "us guys" here actually claimed that the appendix was useless. So it was useless blabbing.

You still have not figured out, no matter how many times i've told you, that when I say "you" I mean "you all" or "people". How many times do I have to tell you?

A completely different thing than the uses of the collarbone, appendix or toes.

And what i'm saying is that we previously thought the appendix was useless, wisdom teeth were useless.

Everything is true until proven false.

So you don't understand evolution after all.

I do, but you've yet to give me any hard proof.

Very simple organism changing itself specifically for the purpose of being able to infect humans. Textbook evolution.

You mean adapting. Apparently developing an immunity to a certain sickness is evolution.

Micro Evolution is true. I want you to prove to me that macro evolution is, which is why i'm wanting you tell me where these "missing links" are.

At 1/18/07 08:43 PM, AdamRice wrote: So people should continue to live in blind delusion because one person is afraid to stand up for what is true?

What harm does it do? I know more than my fair share of people who would have self destructed due to drugs and alcohol if not for that man in the sky and his followers you so vehemently denounce. How many homeless people would starve or freeze to death on a regular basis if not for the Salvation Army and their efforts? Don't even get me started on Battered Women's shelters...

But let me ask you this; what good has atheism done for the community?

Personally, I'd rather have those people believing in a God that may not exist working together to help out their fellow man than have them all wanting my head on a pole.

Obviously some people would be outraged,

Understatement of the century.

but it is only a matter of time before the extremists are crunched into a small minority.

Extremists ARE the minority, it's everyone else I'd worry about.

At 1/18/07 10:35 PM, ForcedDj wrote:

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

Well, it won't happen. Those theories will stay unproven. Remember this, Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

I know Peter and Togukawa have mentioned this on several occasions, but I'll throw it out there one more time.

You guys are aware that viruses and bacteria are able to mutate to adapt to their surrounding right? Antibiotics can go bad when a bacteria strain evolves so that it is resistant. This is not some silly nonsense, it actually happens on a regular basis. There are super bacteria that are unscathed by antibiotics because of their evolution.

And you use the word theory like it means nothing. A theory has been tested numerous times to yield a consistent conclusion. Facts have been used to verify that the said conclusion is infact a theory.

You are thinking of a hypothesis.

And what about those skeletons they have uncovered in Africa that resemble humans, but have differences and abnormalities that are never seen in a modern human's skeleton? These skeletons are on the boarder of human and ape. Hopefully some more half way skeletons will be discovered to further assemble the links in the human evolution chain.

At 1/18/07 11:17 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/18/07 08:43 PM, AdamRice wrote: So people should continue to live in blind delusion because one person is afraid to stand up for what is true?

What harm does it do? I know more than my fair share of people who would have self destructed due to drugs and alcohol if not for that man in the sky and his followers you so vehemently denounce. How many homeless people would starve or freeze to death on a regular basis if not for the Salvation Army and their efforts? Don't even get me started on Battered Women's shelters...

What about all the violent conflicts throughout human history that have come about because of religious disputes? We are technically in a religious war right now with Iraq since all the Muslims think they are doing Allah's will by suicide bombing and shouting death to America. Just think, if the Muslim religion did not exist, what motivation would there be for people to suicide bomb and fight in the name of a god?

Also, belief in god is not necessary to be a good person and donate to charity/homeless. Why do you think that without religion there would be no services for the homeless? Other non- religious well being groups would take it's place.
Take me for example, I feel obligated to help others, not because I'm worried about getting into heaven or other mumbo jumbo, but because it is the right thing to do and makes me feel good about myself.

I personally feel that if you add everything up, religion has done more harm then good.

At 1/18/07 11:25 PM, AdamRice wrote:

You guys are aware that viruses and bacteria are able to mutate to adapt to their surrounding right? Antibiotics can go bad when a bacteria strain evolves so that it is resistant.

We're not talking about micro, MACRO MACRO evolution.

And what about those skeletons they have uncovered in Africa that resemble humans, but have differences and abnormalities that are never seen in a modern human's skeleton? These skeletons are on the boarder of human and ape. Hopefully some more half way skeletons will be discovered to further assemble the links in the human evolution chain.

Reminds me of the neanderthal man (Really just an old man with arthritis and other such desieses) or possibley the nebraska man. All false of course. And to think, for about a century they believed these to be links. Interesting. If only it were more consistant.

At 1/18/07 11:43 PM, Experimental wrote: We're not talking about micro, MACRO MACRO evolution.

though macro and micro evolution are different, enough mutations on a micro evolution level result in macro evolution.

At 1/18/07 11:46 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

though macro and micro evolution are different, enough mutations on a micro evolution level result in macro evolution.

Yes, of course it does.

What i'm asking for here is proof of macro evolution. Micro evolution does NOT mean one species will change into another, and I want them to prove otherwise instead of posting the same thing over and over which tells me how evolution is theorized to work.

Micro evolution is as simple as someone developing an immunity to a virus. I want proof of Macro Evolution.

At 1/18/07 11:43 PM, Experimental wrote: Reminds me of the neanderthal man (Really just an old man with arthritis and other such desieses) or possibley the nebraska man. All false of course. And to think, for about a century they believed these to be links. Interesting. If only it were more consistant.

when did Homo neanderthalensis suddenly become just an old man with artheritis? Neanderthal was never a link but a different branch man. and the Nebraska man was never truly accepted.

At 1/18/07 11:54 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

when did Homo neanderthalensis suddenly become just an old man with artheritis? Neanderthal was never a link but a different branch man. and the Nebraska man was never truly accepted.

The neanderthals were thought to be that link, while most (if not all) those religous continued to believe that it was just the result of deformation, beatings, desieses (such as artheritis). The one setback was that it's cranial capacity was around 13% larger than today's average. It was discovered in the 1850's, then upon further examination in the 1970's was it claimed to a fully, average human.

Then what are these "links"? I could've sworn they were exactly what the previous thoughts of the neanderthal man were. If you want, you can go ahead and ask your grandparents what they considered the neanderthal man to be in those times, what they teached and what was the overal opinion.

At 1/18/07 11:34 PM, AdamRice wrote: What about all the violent conflicts throughout human history that have come about because of religious disputes?

You're talking about invalidating the personally held beliefs of BILLIONS of people, and all you can only focus on the "violence" that was perpetrated by religious people's of the past? What do you think is going to happen when 5.5 billion wake up and realize there is no God, that everything will just be rainbows and cotton candy? People are not that rational!

Just think, if the Muslim religion did not exist, what motivation would there be for people to suicide bomb and fight in the name of a god?

The key term here is suicide; they want to die. If I found out that my religious belief's system is a sham and that all my actions have been for naught, it would be all the more reason for me to do myself in.

Other non- religious well being groups would take it's place.

I put "non-religious charitable groups" into google search and was promptly met with a link to the ACLU homepage. If these are the type of people we'd have to depend on in such an instance, than I fear that humanity will be DOOMED.

I personally feel that if you add everything up, religion has done more harm then good.

It's nothing compared to what you're suggesting.

Neanderthal may early on have been seen as a missing link between modern man and earlier predecessors but we know today that the Homo neanderthalensis was a seperate species of man. though this has changed the neanderthal was not simply an old artheritic Homo sapien. it was a seperate species of man specially adapted for ice age Europe where it lived until modern man arrived. many physical traits differentiate it from homo sapiens and these traits are present among the numerous finds of neanderthals, specimens ranging in age making it impossible that homo neanderthalensis was an old deformed and artheritic modern human.

At 1/19/07 12:18 AM, SolInvictus wrote: Neanderthal may early on have been seen as a missing link between modern man and earlier predecessors but we know today that the Homo neanderthalensis was a seperate species of man.

VIOLA!

So when is science going to be consistant? When are it's finding going to stop being false? Could be now, but from history it doesn't seem likely.

I'm saying that if we missed this, in the case of a "link" who was proven not be, then what other factors could have been missed?

At 1/19/07 12:39 AM, Experimental wrote: I'm saying that if we missed this, in the case of a "link" who was proven not be, then what other factors could have been missed?

but you were also saying that neanderthal man never existed as a species. so much for consitency eh?

Micro and macro evolution are essentially the same. Entire species evolve on macro scale because their individual cells evolve on micro scale.

Micro evolution can be observed because sinlge celled organisms like bacteria go through thousands of generations in a couple of hours. To observe thousands of generations of multicellelar organisms and hence observe macro evolution, we'd need to be able to live and remember for a couple of tens of thousdands of years. The only reason why we can't observe it is because the lifespan is too long.

Besides, there's no middle ground in evolution. Either you're creationist and say: the world was created 6000 years ago, and is static, not moving, or you're evolutionist and say the world is dynamic, in constant change. There's no middle ground, either it's static or dynamic, there's nothing in between. And the definitive proof of micro-evolution is also proof that the world is NOT static, as creationists claim.

As for:

At 1/19/07 12:39 AM, Experimental wrote: So when is science going to be consistant? When are it's finding going to stop being false? Could be now, but from history it doesn't seem likely.

Quite simple: never. There's no such thing as absolute knowledge. There's only relative progress. Every once in a while science finds new and better answers. The only guarantee we have is that due to the process of falsification, the new answers are always better than the previous ones.

It is impossible to arrive to absolutely true answers and be guaranteed that they are absolutely true, in natural science.

In short, it's not as much the current answers that are of importance, it's the way they were found. If we stopped researching right now and kept all the answers we have now, we'd have a quite good, but still flawed vision of the world. We'd know a good few of the elementary particles of nature, but we know that we're missing so many more.

It's the process of falsification that guarantees us relative progress, that makes science so important. It could be that after tens of thousands of years of scientific progress, we come to the same conclusions that the Bible has given us from the start (Even though it's more likely that pigs start flying in a hell that's frozen over). But then those conclusions will have come forth from relative progress, and by the very way they were obtained, will have value. Right now, what the Bible says is just an account of an old book that doesn't correspond with our findings and has no value whatsoever for natural science. It's the way the answers are obtained that matters. Because falsification is the only way we can get rid of flawed answers, and subsitute them with better ones, the only way to guarantee progress.

And the Homo Neanderthalensis is still evidence of the human evolution from primitive being to where we are now. It's not a direct link leading to us, but it IS direct evidence that there is some common ancestor that led to both the Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and the Homo Neanderthalensis.

At 1/18/07 10:35 PM, ForcedDj wrote:

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve.

Nope, both the evolution of man and the Adam and Eve one are still theories and not yet proven.

On the contrary all evidence about our origins that is revealed, shows that the Adam and Eve theology is looking more and more dubious.
Even the holy bible cites various descrpencies in the story of Adam and Eve.
See:
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics /adameve.html

So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

So you think Evolution is fact? They believe what they want to believe.

All new evidence found supports evolution not Adam and Eve. I am niether scientist nor religion. I am completely nuetral. But if I had to choose I would follow the most logical path which seems to be Evolution.

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

Well, it won't happen. Those theories will stay unproven. Remember this, Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Not so.
As technology advances it reveals more and more and reaches further back into revealing our history.
So it is INEVITABLE.

A 2000 year old scripture was recently deiscovered. In it was a description of how Jesus played darts in a Bethlehem inn and scored a regulation 501 in just 8 darts.

Lets see your science explain that!

At 1/18/07 06:07 PM, Experimental wrote: You're going to have to do give me real proof. But in order to do that, you'll need to find the many labeled "missing links". Since you have yet to find any, you can't. What you did was provide me with what we found, and used it to theorize and further advance our knowledge about evolution (based on evidence).

Okay I just can't let this one go. Creationists such as yourself love to spout the "THAR R NO MISSIGN LINKS, LOL, THEREFORE EVOLUTION IS FALSE" argument like it's some fucking gospel, but seriously, get a clue. Do some real reading. I've responded to these sorts of claims so often that I'm just going to give you a few links. TalkOrigins could probably put this more eloquently than me anyway.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.h tml

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1 .html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.h tml

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC202.h tml

And before you say some stupid shit like the website could be lying, take the transitional fossils they list and Google image search them, and prepare to be amazed.

Evidence is different than proof.

blah blah YUO HAEV NO PROFO SO IM GONAN CIET MI BOOK

Hah, I like this quote from your source Jerekai

One simple way to help find out if a person believes the Bible is to show him all of these Bible verses about the first family, then ask if he believes in the Bible or in evolution or theistic evolution. Anyone who says that he believes the Bible AND evolution or theistic evolution is either misinformed, uninformed, dishonest, or attempting to conceal his lack of faith in the Bible with some good-sounding phrases.
[...]
He said, "This sub is okay; not one leak; let's surface!" I have never known a submarine sailor who would go down on a submarine that had just "one leak." You see, just one leak is too many for a submarine. [And just one error is too many for the Bible, God's holy infallible Word!

Instead of asking about evolution, why not ask whether Pi is a infinite number. If they answer yes, oviously they are "misinformed, uninformed, dishonest, or attempting to conceal his lack of faith in the Bible".

But I suppose, one step at the time. First reject evolution, then a moving earth, then a round earth and finally impose a finite value for Pi. Can't do it all at once.

In a war with Science Vs Religion we all know who is going to end up on top.

THE TOMOTO!!!!!

WTF is a tomoto?

At 1/19/07 07:24 AM, Peter-II wrote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.h tml

1 link would be good enough.

And before you say some stupid shit like the website could be lying, take the transitional fossils they list and Google image search them, and prepare to be amazed.

Of course, if I just popped up a religous link saying they're not, I doubt you would consider the website to be truthful. Like if I pulled up a religous link that came down on atheists like that one, you could bash it, calling it full of "lies".

blah blah YUO HAEV NO PROFO SO IM GONAN CIET MI BOOK

And yet, you have yet to give me proof. It's really amazing, you guys are still doing the same exact thing and going around what i'm asking for. You telling me things i already know, but you're not giving the hard proof i'm desiring. If you can't give it, then you really have no reason for arguement.

Why does Science and Religion have to be opposite ideas? One can support the other in very many ways.

At 1/19/07 04:35 PM, Experimental wrote: Of course, if I just popped up a religous link saying they're not, I doubt you would consider the website to be truthful. Like if I pulled up a religous link that came down on atheists like that one, you could bash it, calling it full of "lies".

lol, TalkOrigins isn't atheistic. It's just anti-creationist.

And yet, you have yet to give me proof. It's really amazing, you guys are still doing the same exact thing and going around what i'm asking for. You telling me things i already know, but you're not giving the hard proof i'm desiring. If you can't give it, then you really have no reason for arguement.

Well obviously I wasn't telling you things you already knew as you proclaimed that there aren't any transitional fossils, when you can research any of the transitional fossils the links I gave, and discover that, in fact, transitional forms have been fossilised.

Okay, how is there not "hard proof" for evolution? I suppose that the slow build-up of complexity in fossilised forms merely shows that different species just died? Have you ever paused to consider just how completely absurd that notion is?

Techware, there is no "hard proof" for any natural science. You can never be 100% sure. But what you're saying is "hey, we got a theory of which we are 99% sure, but it isn't 100%, so saying "LOL OMGWTF TIS MAGIC!!1!11" is just as valuable".

There's loads and loads and loads of direct evidence, but "proof" for a natural science is just not possible. Proof has to be based on axioms or premises, and natural science doesn't WORK with axioms or premises.

You're asking us to give something that by its very definition is impossible to give.